If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

피고인은 2013. 1. 5. 00:03경 경남 거창군 거창읍 대동리 소재 반야돌솥밥 앞 도로에서부터 같은 리 소재 주공4차아파트 앞 도로까지 약 600미터 가량을 C 스타렉스 화물차를 운전하여 가던 중 거창경찰서 D파출소 소속 경사 E으로부터 음주단속을 당하게 되었다.

At the time, there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as a light and a light, to the extent that the defendant's blood color has a large amount of drinking in red, smelling, and is unable to walk properly, etc., the defendant was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting approximately 30 minutes in the office of the Seocho Police Station D police box at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant only once refused to take a alcohol test by failing to comply with a police officer's request for a alcohol test on three occasions from 00:10 to 00:42 on the same day without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each legal statement of the witness F and E in this Court;

1. Application of the statute to the CD verification result by this Court

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013);

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to each assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant continues to request the police officers to take a breath test by means of the breath test to take a breath test by the method of collecting blood, but the controlling police officers treated the Defendant as a person who refused to take a breath test by disregarding the Defendant’s request. As long as the Defendant requested the measurement of blood collection, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act is established.